By FITSNews || The S.C. Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a complaint by a Lowcountry family court judge who was deemed unfit to serve by a legislative screening committee - a decision that has prompted fresh debate over the excessive politicization of the judicial appointment process in South Carolina as well as fresh assaults on the character of Chief Justice Jean Toal and Senate President Glenn McConnell.
Three months ago, Charleston, S.C. Judge “Charlie” F.P. Segars-Andrews sued the state’s notoriously corrupt Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) over its decision to effectively terminate her career, arguing that political grudges – not legitimate grounds – served as the basis for the panel’s recommendation.
As expected, the Supreme Court sided with its legislative overlords – who choose its members and appropriate its budget.
“We may not under some thinly veiled guise of law assert judicial power to an action taken by another branch that lies within its exclusive constitutional authority,” Toal’s ruling states.
The decision upholds the state’s current corrupt system – in which six state lawmakers basically decide which judges are allowed to continue serving. Segars-Andrews’ attorneys had argued that this arrangement violated a constitutional prohibition against dual-office holding.
“The South Carolina Constitution expressly vests in the JMSC the sole determination of a judicial candidate’s qualifications, and the General Assembly is constitutionally charged with the election and re-election of judges found qualified by the JMSC,” Toal’s ruling states. “Absent an unconstitutional exercise of those powers, the Court may not intervene in these political determinations.”
Indeed, Senate President Glenn McConnell hailed the ruling as a “green light” for his panel to continue removing judges based on political grounds.
“There is no assurance in South Carolina that you’re going to be a judge for life,” McConnell told the Charleston Post and Courier.
Fine with us … but that doesn’t make the current system fair.
In fact, South Carolina has one of the most corrupt systems of selecting (and electing) judges in the entire nation, as Palmetto State lawmakers are solely responsible for choosing judges and determining their competence to continue serving. Given the predilection of state lawmakers to dispense political favors to their friends and allies, this has not surprisingly been a source of constant corruption – and constant controversy.
As a result, Segars-Andrews’ case has generated significant attention in the S.C. Lowcountry, where she has presided for the better part of two decades.
Their stated rationale for getting rid of her? That Segars-Andrews failed to recuse herself in a divorce case after discovering a conflict of interest – something that certainly doesn’t strike us on the surface as “rising to the level” of grounds for termination.
The case has also become a major political headache for Chief Justice Toal – herself a perpetual meddler in the judicial selection process. Specifically, Toal is said to have guaranteed Segars-Andrews that she would “have the votes” before the committee, a promise she obviously has had to renege on.
From the beginning of this case there have been two competing “back stories” regarding Segars-Andrews. According to her supporters, she is the epitome of judicial purity, a crusading judge who is unafraid to let powerful politicos strong-arm her or dictate rulings in her court. In fact, her unwillingness to appease certain lawmakers is said to have precipitated this drama.
Specifically, Segars-Andrews recently ruled against a good friend of Susan Limehouse, who is the wife of powerful Lowcountry lawmaker Rep. Chip Limehouse.
To her detractors, Segars-Andrews is just the opposite of her “crusading” image. To them, she’s an unethical scam artist of the first order who is involved in an elaborate scheme (along with another judge) to steer favorable rulings to her husband and another local attorney. If true, it obviously wouldn’t be the first time such a scam was alleged in Charleston, but if this was really the case then the Judicial Merit Screening Commission should have raised those concerns.
They didn’t, which leaves us with a demonstrably corrupt committee reaching a dubious finding of fact that gives every appearance of being politically-motivated.
Oh, and a Supreme Court ruling that upholds the “fairness” of such a process …
WEB EXTRA
Frances P. Segars-Andrews v. Judicial Merit Selection Commission
UPDATE: So … what do we think South Carolina’s system should be? Gubernatorial appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate.
By Silence F-ing Dogood March 24, 2010 at 9:07 am
FITS had the Supreme Court decided it had authority to rule on a political question – it would have been the BIGGEST and most egregious example of judicial ‘activism,’ as repubs like to call it, imagineable. If the court had authority to review how legislative decisions were made (rightly or wrongly) they would essentially encompass the power of the judiciary and the legislature together, bar none.
The headline should read – “Court Shows Discretion in Not Un-Constitutionally Stepping into a Legislative Role”
Judges would essentially elect themselves if the court could review this decision. This was the right decision, and all five Jusitices voted to dismiss – should tell you something.
By CL March 24, 2010 at 9:29 am
How in the world could the Court have ruled any differently? Segars-Andrews challenged the constitutionality of the entire merit selection committee process. Every judge in this state was selected in the same manner, including Toal. If Segars-Andrews was right, then each member of the SC Supreme Court would hold their seat illegitimately, meaning they would have no authority to rule in her favor.
And what relief could they have afforded her? Segars-Andrews is basically arguing that becoming a judge should be a lifetime appointment. You would have slammed Toal if she concurred with this reasoning or had bypassed the merit selection process and simply installed Segars-Andrews in her old seat.
I would prefer a judiciary appointed by the legislature, but judicial activism is not the way to achieve it.
By Zach March 24, 2010 at 11:07 am
While I somewhat agree with the other posts in that the Court may not have had a big choice in this matter, the question that was side-stepped across the board is that the JMSC is now the disciplinary body for the judges. The Court has a secret system that rarely if ever does anything to sitting circuit court or family court judges. It is probably good that the Court now has come competition in the discipline process. The legislature needs to take over the attorney discipline part next. It’s worse that the judicial part. It’s all at Toal’s discretion and command. Toal cut a deal with McConnell for him to stay out her discipline systems and sold out Segars Andrews. What’s with Pleiconas claiming “Pleiconas concurred in the result only.” Is he finally standing up to Toal and claiming bs on much of her stuff?
By CNSYD March 24, 2010 at 1:16 pm
There has been obvious conflict of interest for years. You REALLY think she doesn’t help her husband behind the scenes? And in regard to lack of discipline of sitting judges, ever notice how some judges (especially those who got there via service in the General Assembly) all of a sudden decide to step down and return to private practice? Obviously they took that route rather than going through the discipline process.
By Huhhh??? March 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm
We have some real flakes on the bench. What can you expect when judges become judges by virtue of kissing the behinds of our corrupt SC politicians?
The alternative is the likes of Lance Ito.
On the heels of the Judge Goode mess from last year, there is an obvious need for the JMSC to look at sitting judges much more thoroughly than it appears to usually do. The JMSC needs to do extensive advertising of these reviews so that more regular people, like the parents in the Goode case, can come forward to report the horrible decisions that judges make all the time. Look at all the things that came out about Goode after that got going; he should have been off the bench a long time before he was.
Not many lawyers are going to complain and risk the wrath of a judge they will have to appear before again. The judges can be relied on to protect their own. The citizens have to get involved and start exposing what they know about this highly protected elite who have gotten a free ride, up until now. Whether we like McConnell or not, this is good because it gives people hope that they can do something to rid ourselves of a class of state employee that usually has absolutely no accountability (since they don’t dump ‘em at their 3rd overturned on appeal decision – 3 strikes and they’re out; that means they don’t even care if judges don’t know the law.)
We deserve judges who know the law, dispense justice impartially and keep their political leanings and connections out of the courtroom.
By CL March 24, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Brainfart in the last sentence of my post – “legislature” should be “governor”.
By lowcountryvictimodS-A March 24, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Toal had no choice. This Judge was racketeering. The husband and the Charleston lawyers who played along ought to all pay the price. There’s no way to calculate all the damage this woman has done.
By alpha March 24, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Aside from this particular case, isn’t Toal the one who drives drunk, collides with other cars, leaves the scene of the accident, goes home and claims “I know nothing” when the police arrive? Like Bauer? Shame on her. Shame on the whole corrupt system.
By theoriginaljustme March 24, 2010 at 10:38 pm
The way Judge S-A has been treated is a travesty of politcs. Glenn McConnell is the personification of “absolute power corrupts – absolutely.”
By SubZeroIQ March 25, 2010 at 2:50 am
McConnell Caesar now rules South Carolina and will lead it to total collapse. Before the Roman Empire collapsed, Caesar held both executive and judicial powers. Remember St. Paul’s portest that he had received forty-minus-one lashes despite being a Roman citizen and his being sent to Caesar to complain. At least Rome had a separate Senate. South Carolina’s Senate is also behind the scenes by McConnell Caesar. This ruling has more disaster implications than anyone can see. What semblance or a rule of law was in South Carolina has now been replace by the entrenched rule of McConnell Caesar. Next, if that is not already happening, one side to a trial or motions scheduled before a judge will call McConnell Caesar to make sure that side wins “or else” that judge does not get reelected. It all started last year with the outing of Judge Goode. Goode may not have been very good; but he had done nothing out of the ordinary. Most criminal defendants who plead get probations. The prosecutors are too lazy to try cases and propose sentences that fit the crime; the prisons are too full; and (that’s the key) private criminal defense lawyers need the money of the more successful drug dealers and of the middle class drunk drivers and occasional spouse-batterers. They all get probation even from the most “tough-on-crime” judges because most assistant solicitors leave for private practice and advertize “Former State (or Federal) Prosecutor.” Translation: I have connections that will get you a good plea deal.
What should happen now? First, all South Carolina judges should go on strike until McConnell Caesar resigns from the Joint Merit Selection Committee (JMSC). If McConnell Caesar wants to be the Supreme Judge of South Carolina, he should really try doing it all by himself. Judges should not let him pick them off one by one and install his cronies in their seats. They should strike and let him really run the courts and see if he can please everybody. Next, we should think of better ways to elect and reelect judges.
The judges like this system because it’s easy. One Justice said in the oral argument of Segars-Andrews case, “Someone called Costa Pleicones would never have been elected statewide.” We live in an America where the people of Louisiana elected one Peyoush Jindel for Governor and the people of Illinois elected one Barak Hussein Obama for U.S. Senator. He resigned his Senate Seat for some later event. But the judges of South Carolina still think the people of South Carolina too dumb and too racist to elect their own judges. But there are better ways than appointments, statewide elections or life tenures. Please see Part II of my comments if it will get printed. Thanks for publishing it and for reading it.
By Todd March 25, 2010 at 7:44 am
SubZeroIQ: A lot of what you say may be true. McConnell, however, is still not suffering as much from his case of malignant narcissism as Toal is from hers. Toal caved in to McConnell in this issue to protect her kingdom. So she lost one judge in this round? It still allows her to run the judiciary as she pleases and delayed further review of her systems. Why hasn’t Hearn stepped up to the plate and taken Toal on as was promised when Hearn was running for her position? Pleiconas is too weak and perhaps lazy. Beatty can’t seem to do it. Kittredge is just so happy to be at the party – but still doesn’t know why he was invited and doesn’t know what to do now that he is there. Therefore, he votes as Toal and Pleiconas tell him to do. Sheesh.
By Dirty Benches in CHS March 25, 2010 at 8:42 am
It’s mighty nice down here in Charleston. There’s a certain “cleanliness, clarity and beauty on Broad Street now”….Thank you Senator McConnell. Please continue cleaning house.
By beentook2 March 25, 2010 at 9:19 am
Great story. Love to read about the cockroaches feeding off each other.
As for McConnell there is no need to worry.
Word out of the Holy Shit City of Charleston is that the Hunley is ready for re-launching. McConnell has volunteered to Captain the vessel. Bauer will be the hands on first mate.
Their target will the Union Aircraft Carrier Yorktown. Upon sinking the sunken Carrier, McConnell and crew will return to the Holy Shit City of Charleston and run nakkied through the downtown area.
The world famous cinematographer Humpme Cromer will film the event and all proceeds will go to the Erection of Boss Hog Knotts (likeness) on the State House grounds.
By SubZeroIQ March 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Part II of my comments. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews should try to go the U.S. Supreme Court with her case. It is not about whether she should have recused herself or not. (I, for one, believe she most surely should have.) It is not about her having been a good or a bad judge. (I do not know and no one can tell now that there was a bidding war on the facts.) The issue is other branches reviewing judicial decisions.
The judiciary is supposed to be the non-political branch of government. A republican form of government is guaranteed to the people of every state by Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. A republican form of government means separation of powers with checks and balances. South Carolina’s modern (only in the sense that it was re-written in the second half of the twentieth century) constitution also has a republican form of government provision. The only permissible legislative check on the judiciary is by a pre-detailed impeachment process. The judge either committed an impeachable offense or did not.
If she did not, the Legislature had no business looking behind her decision. If she did, she should have been impeached and tried by prescribed procedures. If South Carolina’s legislature had no power to impeach sitting judges when “Charlie” did not recuse herself, it cannot ex post facto give itself that power. And it is not as if South Carolina’s entire General Assembly, or even Senate, voted by a super-majority or even a simple majority to impeach her. South Carolina’s General Assembly did not get to vote on Judge “Charlie” AT ALL due to the actions ONE senator who listened to ONE constituent.
So, even if the people of South Carolina were content with some politicization of the election and re-election of their state judges, they expected the political factors to be expressed by the entire General Assembly, which, in turn, must express the choice of the entire state, or a at least a majority thereof.
McConnell Caesar said South Carolina’s Family Court judges are specially important because there are no juries. WHY SHOULD THERE BE NO JURIES IN FAMILY COURT IN SOUTH CAROLINA? The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of United States guarantees trial by jury where the sum in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. In dollars of their time or ours, property and alimony issues in divorce cases always exceed twenty dollars. Yes, the issues may be sensitive; but it should be the parties’ choice to go with a jury or a judge in divorce cases and either way to ask for sealed records.
Four wrongs do not make a right. Even if were wrong for “Charlie” to not have recused herself, her ousting in this manner is more wrong. What is most wrong is South Carolina’s Supreme Court’s analysis, which was in part driven by the timid and opportunistic argument of Judge “Charlie’s” lawyer. At oral argument, and in the opinion, it is said that the State Supreme Court may still review (and possibly overturn) the Joint Merit Selection Committee’s (JMSC) decision if it is based on impermissible factors such as race and gender. Really? How will the Justices know? They will have to sit as triers of fact. And would that not be exactly violating the separation of powers they said they cannot do by overturning the JMSC’s decision? What if the reason the JMSC finds the next judge “unqualified” is that the judge fairly ruled for a poor immigrant worker against a powerful local employer? Is that constitutional or not? And does South Carolina’s Supreme Court promise to take, in its original jurisdiction, every case a judge or candidate alleges (s)he was ruled unqualified because the JMSC took into consideration impermissible factors?
Please see Part III of my comments for suggestions of a better system. And again, thanks for printing my comments and for reading them.
By SubZeroIQ March 25, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Part III of my comments. What to do now? Retired Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is very worried about the effect of money on statewide elections of state judges and rightly so. Campaign money is now unlimited; and the Caperton vs. Massey case of a West Virginia State Supreme Court Justice who ruled after having indirectly received three million dollars in campaign support from an organization that essentially fronted for a party to the case before him shows the public can reasonably believe that large campaign contributions may influence judicial decisions. So, statewide elections are ever less attractive but federal-type tenure-during-good-behavior system is disfavored by most states.
But there is a reason only two states have legislatures elect judges. It is a very bad system; but South Carolina is likely to cling to everything peculiar to it as superior “heritage.”
Why not let state judges elect and re-elect judges? A variant of that occurs in the federal system. The Article III U.S. District Judges elect (or appoint) the non-Article III federal Magistrate Judges. And the Article III U.S. Circuit Judges elect (or appoint) the non-Article III federal bankruptcy judges. These are for terms and get reappointed. Who better than judges to elect their own colleagues? And who better than judges to see from among the lawyers who practice before them who is good judge material?
Students as young as Sixth Grade and as wild as college are trusted to elect their own class presidents etc. Why should judges not be trusted to elect new judges or at least nominate them for statewide up-or-down referanda? Judges would also be best placed to decide among themselves who deserves re-election. The lazy, temperamental or unfair judge is likely to have such reputation in the court houses.
And judges themselves would have the highest interest in weeding the chaff from their ranks. Those who worry about women-and-minority representation must know that the judiciary is more likely to elect the more meritorious, not the better-politically-connected, women and minorities, if for no other reason than self-interest. Incompetent judges ideally get appealed and reversed. And unfair ones get asked to recuse themselves. That means more work for the good judges. So, they would have every interest in electing good judges to pull their own weight alongside them.
Could factions develop and political and trade-off deals be made among the judges? Sure. But again, the self-interest would limit that to electing and re-electing judges who will not bring headaches to the whole group.
Nothing can be worse than South Carolina’s system. Different ways deserve to be tried. Yes, they would require amendments to the Constitution of South Carolina; but that is a relatively easy and affordable process. What is unaffordable in any of the United States is de facto rule by one member of one branch.
By Lilly Collette March 26, 2010 at 6:41 am
Toal Throws Lowcountry Judge To The Wolves —
EXCUSE ME!
Segars-Andrews was not a “judge”. She committed a crime from the bench and became a trespasser to the bench. Chuckie Segars-Andrews was no better than an “enforcer” in a criminal cartel.
By Nothing Could Be Finer March 28, 2010 at 11:45 am
Jean Toal herself went strait from a seat in the House of Representatives to a seat on the SC Supreme Court.
Toal was on the court when the court threatened to hold a former Williamsburg County Sheriff in contempt for speaking out about a complaint he had filed with the Supreme Court against corruption by a Williamburg County Magistrate.
The court backed down and away from charging the then Sheriff with contempt because federal law made it a crime to punish someone for exercising a clearly established 1st Amendment right. Tell me that Jeal Toal is an upright and just person, and I will fall down on the floor laughing at you.
By Nothing Could Be Finer March 28, 2010 at 11:50 am
Zach, litigants need the JMSC. Everyone of these judges knows each other. Many went to law school together. And many do, in fact, socialize with one another and can be found on golf course everywhere across the state playing a round or two with one other – and their lawyer friends. People that know their faces see them often.
By SubZeroIQ March 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Nothing Could Be Finer: Thanks for not letting interest in this wane. This is South Carolina’s Marbury v. Madisson, except no Chief Justice Marshall here.
Todd: Who are you really? The Clerk of the Supreme Court? But you are too poetic and literate to be he. So, how do you know all this?
Everybody: This is very serious. Don’t just blow off steam about it and move on. This is about whether we, your children and your grandchildren will live under a predictable rule of law or in a corrupt jungle. Let us all keep thinking, writing and talking about it. Let this thread engender some constitutional amendment or some change of law for the better. God speed.
By Lilly Collette April 21, 2010 at 8:13 am
See, http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=25346
In the Matter of Anonymous Member of S.C. Bar